BUSH SUCKS

“Don't call me Liberal either... I'm a neither, I want the Gov to LEAVE ME ALONE... I don't want them to take my guns and I don't want them forcing me to pray...

I think both Liberals and Republicans are babies that can't ween themselves from the gov teat over simple things...”

“Steenking leeeberatarian!”

“I'm not that either... I'm just a dood...

I don't like hand outs so I'm anti-republicans, they hand out to big business...

I'm anti-democrat because they hand out to... everyone (some don't even want it)

I think it's time to update our education system (yeah it's ok now, but basically upscale daycare)

I don't like the way we typically do foreign policy...
we are dealing with the fallout of secret little bullcrap that didn't always help us out.

I also don't like how the parties are always trying to screw each other

I think the current state of politics is just polarizing people to a party, the end result is what we have now... people calling each other names over situations we don't like (that the government created in the past)”

“now iraq says they'll let inspectors in....hmm....that was too easy...”

“I don't like, I don't like, I don't like...

What's your solution Mr. Moderate?

And Suddam will not let them in, he's scared $hitless one of them is a spy out to kill him (I hope there is...)”

“Yeah. Because when the UN sent WEAPONS inspectors in before, they did things like SPY on HIM. You've gotta practice what you preach.”

“What type of proof do we need to attack? Do we wait for another attack like 9/11?”

“Let's see Sherpa. LInks to al Queda? Hmmm, haven't seen any proof on that one. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Hmmm, haven't seen any proof on those.

So what were the other reasons for attacking Saddam? Oh yeah. His oil and because he's not a nice guy.

Well, fortunately in the international community, those really aren't reasons for attacking another country. Sorry to disappoint.”

“Seems like that even someone attacking your country (like 9/11) doesn't warrant rataliation in the eyes of the "international community" (remember all of the pissing and moaning going on when we attacked the Taliban in Ashcanistan). He must have had a reason to kick out weapons inspectors in the first place. Maybe they were close to finding something he didn't want them to. If you think this guy isn't a threat to this country, then maybe you need to catch the next train back to fantasy land.”

“The U.S. is a bunch of oil junkies, and Saudi Arabia is our pusher. We SHOULD be paying $3.00 a gallon for gas, and the extra being used to develop alternative energies, include wind, solar, and nuclear. That would also "incentivize" smaller and more efficient cars. Like someone said, its all about choices. Economics should drive the choice, not regulations.

We should pull out of Saudi entirely, and let Sadam H. have it. Then we should take Sadam, Saudi Arabia, and turn both over to democratically elected governments.

We should not be backing dictatorships just because the alternative is scary. If everyone votes on their government, the extremists will lose.

If we had the knowledge of what Hilter was capable of, would we have had the guts to confront him when he first took over a neighboring country? I think that is the choice we are faced with in Iraq. Sadam will use nukes when he gets them, and supply them to people who will use them on US soil/ ports. A nuke carrying ship could get in NY (or Baltimore, Boston, LA, Dan Diego, Seattle, Portland, harbor easily, before it is inspected, and blow up a city. If the loss of 3000 people, and 1000 companies in the WTC had this effect on our ecomony, what would the loss of NY have on the economy? I don't mean so much stock values, but being out of work.

That is my rant.”

“I thos point, these scenarios are moot since Saddam has agreed to UNCONDITIONALLY allow arms inspectors in to Iraq. When and if he limits where they can go, see, report or if he kicks them out, then we can have this discussion, again.”

“That will be in about a month.”

“here is my solution...
Looks like so far Saddam has agreed to unconditional inspection... Let's get the inspectors in there NOW! Not waste time and let politicians puff up their chests and screw things up...

then the U.S. HAS to deal with THE TERRORIST SUPPORTING COUNTRY THAT WE SUPPORT! Saudi Arabia MUST be dealt with! We have to STOP the spread of Wahabi Islam, the Saudi Royal Family is paying them off (with U.S. Dollars) to keep them happy so that the Wahabis don't go after the moderate monarchy.

Saudi Arabia is playing a balance game between extremist Islam (Wahabism) and U.S. Capitalism... so far the U.S. is the loser, if we continue the way things are more terrorist strikes are guaranteed...

Iraq is a crappy little country with a psycho in control, but terrorism is flourishing in the world through Saudi Arabia”

“I think we should send a battalion of Marines to Saddam's palace and announce, "We are here for the inspection."”

“he'll hide the nukes under schools. hide the boiweapons under hospitals.



bush means what he says. we have no chioce. he's not doing this for votes(the way dashel suddenly supports him). he really means what he says on this subject. that's my take.”

“What is the only nation ever condemned by the world court for state sponsored terrorism? http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm" target="_blank">(hint)

What is the only nation to ever use atomic weapons against another nation?”

“Had to say something, international politics, courts, etc. can go #&%!$ themselves!

When is the last time another country has ever done anything for the USA? Why should we really care?

How much $$$ do we give away to thankless countries every day?

And Rosey, not meaning this sarcastically, but do you really think Saddam is not building nukes? Do you really think he's all the sudden decided it's ok just because?”

“So to sum up itsonlynatural… Iraq should be forced to obey international law but we are above it?”

“That sounded a little harsh, I don't mean in anyway I literally think we should be the kings of the world. I just don't think we should always go by the "international way", just because the UN says so doesn't mean it's right....”

“Bush stumbles (requires realplayer, but worth it)”

“Yeah, that's a hard one to remember, Violin :)”

“...did anybody see or read Rumsfeld's Sept. 16 press conference? It really shows how screwed up this administration is. The following bold text is from the Dept. of Defense webpage: (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/t09162002_t0916sd.html)

Q: Mr. Secretary, two months ago I asked you if the United States would consider a preemptive strike against North Korea because North Korea was obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and you said at that time, quote: "You gotta be kidding," unquote. In other words, no way. And yet the United States is considering -- underline "considering" -- a preemptive strike against Iraq. What's the difference? And should we, perhaps, also consider taking action against North Korea and Iran, since they were mentioned in the State of the Union?

Rumsfeld: [snip] I don't know what's going to happen in North Korea, except that we do know that they are one of the world's worst proliferators, particularly with ballistic missile technologies. We know they're a country that has been aggressively developing nuclear weapons and has nuclear weapons. {"The IC judged in the mid-1990s that North Korea had produced one, possibly two nuclear weapons," according to the December 2001 Unclassified Summary of a National Intelligence Estimate.} And we know they're a danger first and foremost to their own people, and second, they're a threat principally because of their proliferating activities, as opposed to being a threat to South Korea.

So I see a different situation, and I think the President's approaching it properly. [snip]


The Dummy Admin obviously has been waffling back and forth on whether or not North Korea has nukes for a while now. Evidently, Rummy's operating on the assumption they do. But Rummy is also aparently saying North Korea is not an immediate threat to U.S. interests (even though we have thousands of troops on the peninsula), but somehow Sadam is an immediate threat, even though the Dummy Admin has been saying he doesn't have any nuclear weapons, or even if he did, he has no delivery system. But here Rummy is saying that North Korea not only has nuclear bombs, but also has the ballistic missile technology to threaten regional powers (and the U.S. from other sources I've read). So how is it that Sadam warrants a pre-emptive strike? Does this not make any sense or what? Isn't NK a part of the "axis of evil"? So from what Rummy is saying, we can conclude that a country that already has nuclear weapons is going to be off-limits for our pre-emptive strike doctrine? What about all those missing nuclear weapons of the Soviet era? Who has those? I guess all the terrorists or any other actor has to do to avoid an American pre-emptive strike is make a credible showing of having a nuke and, more importantly, a method of delivery. Won't this be an even greater incentive for "rogue" nations, terrorists, et al to go after nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technologies? What if Sadam suddenly tests a ballistic missile with a range of a 1000 miles that's capable of carrying a nuke? Will Iraq be a "different situation" and be off limits for our pre-emptive war? This whole thing seems counter-productive and stupid.

What do you guys think?”

“I think that's been one of the hawk's principle arguments for going into Iraq now, before they develop nuclear weapons. It certainly would make things more risky.”

“That was great violin, heard it yesterday...

You're right Mutt, we just don't know and if they don't let us in... so be it, we have to assume the best...your thinking scares the $hit out of me!

Here's a posting I just read... I thought it was good, from your Dummy... it's not about inspections anymore, he's screwed up over 16 instances with the UN...

"Weapons inspections do have a place if they can be sufficiently intrusive to disarm a country," Rumsfeld said, adding that with the many means Iraq has used to disguise its weapons program it is unlikely that a U.N. weapons inspection team would have much success.

"Even the most intrusive inspection regime would have difficulty getting at all of his weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Protesters interrupted the defense secretary as soon as he began to testify. A woman sitting only a few rows behind him stood up and started asking him if the goal was really getting oil and not preventing terrorism. She was joined by a second woman who chanted and held up banners saying "U.N. inspections, not war."

After the two were escorted out of the room, Rumsfeld recovered quickly, saying the ability of the individuals to get into the congressional hearing and demonstrate is an indication of the freedoms that U.S. citizens have -- something Iraqi citizens don't enjoy.

He said the protesters may want to keep in mind that Iraq threw out weapons inspectors, not the United States, and added that inspections are not the end of the road when it comes to dealing with Iraq.

"The goal isn't inspections, the goal is disarmament. That is what was agreed to" after the Gulf War, Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee. "You can only have inspections when a country is cooperating with you."”

“However, this whole thing has nothing to do with disarmament. This segment from http://www.msnbc.com/news/805214.asp " target="_blank"> Sept. 8ths Meet the Press says it all.

MR. RUSSERT: If Saddam did let the inspectors in and they did have unfettered access, could you have disarmament without a regime change?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Boy, that’s a tough one. I don’t know. We’d have to see. I mean, that gets to be speculative, in terms of what kind of inspection regime and so forth.


MR. RUSSERT: But what’s your goal? Disarmament or regime change?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: The president’s made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions…


MR. RUSSERT: So you don’t think you can get disarmament without a regime change?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I didn’t say that. I said the president’s objective for the United States is still regime change…”

“I agree, it's more than just disarmament... but I just don't get why a country that has denied the UN in so many times gets special treatment?

Sounds like bleeding hearts syndrome...”

“Right. Basically the current admin. could give a shiit if Saddam complied with inspectors/disarmament. They want him out so they can put in a puppet govt. to manipulate for cheap gas. Sure, I'd feel better if Saddam took a flying leap but it's bad world PR for one country to oust the leader of another country (elected or not) without a clear and proven rationale for doing so.

Again, let's see the landsat images of Saddam's nuclear weapons manufacturing plant (it requires a huge facility to manufacture weapons grade uranium), the video images of his manufacturing facility, or something like that. Then maybe you'll get a lot more people on board. Maybe.”

“No rosey, its not about the oil either. Iraq made it clear that if we supported lifting the sanctions, they’d make sure our oil needs were always met. They’ve never had a problem selling to us.

According to this story in the http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/253/nation/Iraq_war_hawks_have_plans_to_reshape_entire_Mideast%2B.shtml" target="_blank">Boston Globe, Iraq is the keystone in a plan to reshape the entire Middle East. It is an admirable goal, if it has any chance of working.


BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Iraq war hawks have plans to reshape entire Mideast
By John Donnelly and Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff, 9/10/2002

WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its most hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that sees the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first step in the region's transformation.

The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Mideast has been pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles. It is now being considered as a possible US policy with the ascent of key hard-liners in the administration - from Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon to John Hannah and Lewis Libby on the vice president's staff and John Bolton in the State Department, analysts and officials say.

Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an ouster of Hussein, they say, the United States will have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able to rely less on Saudi oil.

The thinking does not represent official US policy. But increasingly the argument has served as a justification for a military attack against Iraq, and elements of the strategy have emerged in speeches by administration officials, most prominently Vice President Dick Cheney.

''The goal is not just a new regime in Iraq. The goal is a new Middle East,'' said Raad Alkadiri, an Iraq analyst with PFC, a Washington-based energy consulting organization. ''The goal has been and remains one of the main driving factors of preemptive action against Iraq.''

Cheney revealed some of the thinking in a speech in August when he made the administration's case for a regime change. He argued Hussein's overthrow would ''bring about a number of benefits to the region'' and enhance US ability to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

''When the gravest of threats are eliminated, the freedom-loving peoples of the region will have a chance to promote the values that can bring lasting peace,'' he told the national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The arguments are, by no means, uniform, and critics dismiss some as wishful thinking. Even among neoconservatives who see an attack on Iraq as a first step toward transforming the Mideast, there are debates over how far-reaching and fast the change will be.

The more modest version sees an attack as sending a message to the rest of the region, making clear the US is prepared to unilaterally deploy its military power to achieve its goals, objectives, and values.

Among its most extreme versions was a view elaborated in a briefing in July by a Rand Corp. researcher to the Defense Policy Board - an advisory group to the Pentagon led by Richard Perle, a leading hawk.

That briefing urged the United States to deliver an ultimatum to the Saudi government to cut its ties to militant Islam or risk seizure of its oil fields and overseas assets. It called Iraq ''the tactical pivot'' and Saudi Arabia ''the strategic pivot.''

Within those poles some clear themes are emerging, and Saudi Arabia receives much of the attention, analysts and officials say.

Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, contends that a pro-US Iraq would lead to a reassessment of the US-Saudi alliance, which dates to World War II but has become strained since Sept. 11 attacks, and the worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A friendly Iraq - home to the world's second-largest oil reserves - would provide an alternative to Saudi Arabia for basing US troops. Its oil reserves would make Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, less important in setting prices, he said. In general, others contend, a US-allied Iraq could work to diminish the influence of OPEC, long dominated by Saudi Arabia, over oil supplies and prices.

''We would be much more in a position of strength vis-a-vis the Saudis,'' Clawson said.
Others espousing the vision see potential changes in Syria and Iran, as well. The fallout from an attack on Iraq could bring to a head the longstanding power struggle in Iran between conservatives in the clerical leadership and reformers grouped around President Mohammad Khatami.

Some see the reformers invigorated by the example of a democratic Iraq, or even a surge in popular discontent leading to far-reaching change. At the very least, they argue, the show of US power would give the administration more leverage in pressuring Iran over its suspected missile and nuclear programs.

The United States could exert that same leverage in forcing an end to Syrian support for Lebanon's Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim guerrilla group allied with Iran that opposes Israel.
A powerful corollary of the strategy is that a pro-US Iraq would make the region safer for Israel and, indeed, its staunchest proponents are ardent supporters of the Israeli right-wing. Administration officials, meanwhile, have increasingly argued that the onset of an Iraq allied to the US would give the administration more sway in bringing about a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though Cheney and others have offered few details on precisely how.

''Maybe we do stir the pot and see what comes up,'' one US official said.
In its broadest terms, the advocates argue that a democratic Iraq would unleash similar change elsewhere in the Arab world - an argument resonant among Bush administration officials who have increasingly called for change in a region where Western-style democracy is virtually nonexistent.

''Everyone will flip out, starting with the Saudis,'' said Meyrav Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute in Washington. ''It will send shock waves throughout the Arab world.

''Look, we already are pushing for democracy in the Palestinian Authority - though not with a huge amount of success - and we need a little bit more of a heavy-handed approach,'' she said. ''But if we can get a democracy in the Palestinian Authority, democracy in Iraq, get the Egyptians to improve their human rights and open up their system, it will be a spectacular change. After a war with Iraq, then you really shape the region.''

Critics call the arguments misguided at best, with tragic worst-case scenarios.
''There are some people who religiously believe that Iraq is the beginning of this great new adventure of remapping the Middle East and all these countries. I think that's a simplistic view,'' said Judith Yaphe, an Iraq scholar and senior research professor at the National Defense University.

Jessica T. Mathews, president of Carnegie Endownment for International Peace, a Washington policy group, said that installing a democracy in Iraq, much less the rest of the Middle East, would be extraordinarily difficult, if not out of the question. She contended that change in Iraq is more akin to building a wall brick by brick and will require the support of allies.

''The argument we would be starting a democratic wave in Iraq is pure blowing smoke,'' Mathews said. ''You have 22 Arab governments and not one has made any progress toward democracy, not one. It's one of the great issues before us, but the very last place you'd suspect to turn the tide is Iraq. You don't go from an'' authoritarian '' dictatorship to a democracy overnight, not even quickly.''

Nevertheless, there are signs the thinking has powerful backers.

While many of the hawks are under the wing of Wolfowitz, several conservatives hold influential positions in Cheney's office and in the State Department, which is headed by the administration's most prominent moderate, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. During the Clinton administration, many of them served with far-right, defense-oriented think tanks such as the Center for Security Policy and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

Perle, an adviser to both groups, remains a resident fellow at the hawkish American Enterprise Institute and a member of the board at the Hudson Institute.

''There are people invested in this philosophy all throughout the administration. Some of the strongest voices are in State,'' said one senior US official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The most vocal hawk at the State Department is Bolton, who holds two titles - undersecretary for arms control and international proliferation and senior adviser to the president for arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament.”

“WHY DID HE NOT COMPLY WITH THE UN 16 DIFFERENT TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS HE AGREED UPON?

And rosey, it's possible to hide something of that level under a school... and being he'll kill his own people, why would he care about threatening children?”

“Violin:

While the grand scheme may be to reshape politics and social norms in the Middle East, the immediate desire, IMHO, remains undercutting the Saudi stranglehold on the U.S. oil supply (which I am for) and finding a replacement supply e.g. Iraq.

Personally, I don't see why we aren't cutting the Saudis and the rest of the ME out of the picture entirely and turning to Russia for more of their oil. It seems to me this would dry-up funding for Middle Eastern terrorism quite quickly.”

“Decreasing Saudi Arabia's influence on OPEC is mentioned as one of the side benefits of this grand scheme.”

“Why not turn to the US for oil?

Oh yeah, enviromental wackos....”

“When the rest of the countries in the world starts shelling out ten billion dollars a year for foreign aid, they can make the rules.”

“Oh, I see bacpac. The rich call the shots in your world. Sounds like Imperialism to me...”

“It is called reality. Try it, you will hate it.”

“Interesting argument bacpac. While the US was the largest world donor in 2001, in terms of raw dollars, we are last on the list of 22 nations when viewed as a percentage of GDP. We only recently surpassed Japan due to their ailing economy and our $600 million hand out to Pakistan to secure their support in our war against terrorism. If you lump the EU into one unit, it is they, not we who should be calling the shots, based upon your reasoning.

http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00029000/M00029445.pdf " target="_blank">Developmental Assistance Flows 2001”

“How's that foot taste?”

“But Violin...

Who built Japan???”

“No cutting in! I'm dancing with bacpac now.”

“LOL... alright alright, go ahead...”

“violin, that article fails to mention one very important factor in attacking Iraq - China. The war is not only about remapping the ME, but also kicking China out of the region. Look at the competition between China and the U.S. in Africa for support of this argument. Otherwise the article was pretty much dead-on.”

“It appears that your data supports my argument. The US provides more aid than any other country. Not included in the numbers is the cost of defense that the US has provided the Western World.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.”

“Oh, I see bacpac. The rich call the shots in your world.
Sounds like Imperialism to me..."
roseymonster

They do It in my world too, whether I like it or not that's just how it is. You will never see a common person in the Whitehouse, those rooms are reserved for the 1%ers, not the masses.

I can accept that.

Good thing too because If I were there I probably nuke Iraq for nothing then tell them to do something.”

“dont give me that doo goody good bullllsh1t......





violin , ,what a load of cacadoodoo. i'm surprised that story didn't mention alien influences or tarot card reading in the defense dept basement. pure speculative crap.



ya'll are reachin for straws and comin up empty.


we get 7% of our oil from saudi arabia. we don't need them that bad. gas is 11 cents a gallon chheaper than it was this time last year. if it was higer, EVERYTHING in this counrty would be higher & the economy would be in the tank and you would rip bush a new for a bad economy.



try refuting that.....”

“stratdewd, it actually varies between 10 and 15%. look on the DOE webpage. I agree, though, that it would be easily replaced by russian exports and by african exports.

But the article is right on, more or less, with the exception of the china issue.”

“Bush blows too!”

“it's an editorial, total conjuncture. look.....



The thinking does not represent official US policy(4th paragraph) they admit, it's speculation.”

“but yeah, i agree, it's 15%, ,mutt. how drillin some of our anwar?”

“So bacpac...

In 2000 when we gave just under 10 billion and Japan gave 13.5 billion or in 1999 when we gave about 9 billion and Japan gave over 15 billion, they were making the rules? http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00001000/M00001388.pdf

You're correct though. Physically occupying many countries while retaining the ability to destroy the rest gives us the right to tell the world what to do.”